Date: July 20, 2022
Location: Singapore
Address: No Details
Type: Dust Explosion
Fuel: Grain Dust
Industry: Grain Processing (Agriculture)
Equipment: Grain Dryer
Company: No Details
Database Incidents: None Recorded
Loss: One Injured
Capital Cost: Unknown
Status: Open
Confirmation: Unconfirmed
Company Description:
The company was not identified in any press coverage of the incident.
Incident Description:
On November 18, 2022, 8 World reported the results of a dust explosion investigation at an agricultural facility in Singapore.
According to a statement issued by the Workplace Safety and Health Council, the accident occurred on July 20 when a dust explosion occurred in a grain dryer at a factory, causing the vents to be damaged. A flash fire burned a worker’s elbow.
A preliminary investigation determined that there was an ignition source within the dryer, and that a flaw in the explosion-proof device caused an accidental leak, resulting in the worker being burned.
Research Team Update:
Our research team obtained the Serious Accident & Incident Report from the Workplace Safety & Health Council of Singapore, which includes photos of the incident. The report shows that a circular dryer in a congested area caused a combustible dust cloud to ignite and explode, potentially due to improperly maintained lifting shackles. The report recommends that dust handling equipment be safely designed with relief vents to vent energy during a dust explosion, but the design in this case was inadequate and did not vent the deflagration away from the platform and grating above the dryer. The location of the employee during the deflagration is indiscernible from available images, but they suffered burns only on their elbow, which is a peculiar finding.
Investigations on grain dust explosions have found that the hands and face are the most frequently burned areas, making the employee’s elbow burns peculiar. It is possible that the employee was on the catwalk and that the grating only burned in one area or that the elbow burns were caused by some form of shielding. However, the limited information available makes it uncertain whether personal protective equipment could have prevented the incident.
